Laserfiche WebLink
Arden Hills Council 3 July 26, 1993 <br />Fritsinger noted that at the Planning Commission meeting, <br />the Commission reviewed a proposal for a 24' X 26' garage, <br />which would be located at an angle to the side property line <br />whereby the front carner of the garage would encroach five <br />feet on the required sideyard setback, and the back corner <br />of the garage would encroach a lesser amount. <br />Fritsinger stated that since the Planning Commission action, <br />the Applicant has revised his proposal by reducing the size <br />of the garage to 22' X 26' and moving the garage slightly <br />more to the rear of the property, the affect of those <br />revisions being that the front corner of the garage would be <br />seven feet from the property line (an encroachment of only <br />three feet on the sideyard setback) and the rear corner of <br />the garage would be 11 feet from the property line <br />(exceeding the minimum 10' sideyard setback requirement). <br />Hicks cammented that the Applicant, by revising his plans, <br />has attempted to reduce the sideyard setback encroachment to <br />the extent practical, and in fact, considering that the <br />garage is planned to be at an angle with the side property <br />line, the "average" sideyard setback on the revised proposal <br />is nine feet, an "average" encroachment of only one foot. <br />Hicks recalled that the property owner to the east of the <br />Applicant took action a few years ago to acquire a strip of <br />property along the common 1ot line, effectively moving the <br />common lot line closer to the Applicant's home. The Council <br />was advised that if that acquisition had not occurred, the <br />Applicant could construct the proposed garage without the <br />need for a variance. <br />The Applicant commented that the acquisition of the strip of <br />property along the common property line took place prior to <br />his ownership of the subject property. He added that he has <br />been told that the reason for the shifting of the common <br />property line was to allow the property owner to his east to <br />park his boat and stack fire wood along his garage without <br />encroaching on the common lot line. <br />Mayor Sather commented that the Applicant currently has no <br />garage and prohibiting the construction of a garage could be <br />construed as denying the Applicant reasonable use of his <br />property. He reiterated that the Applicant has attempted to <br />reduce the encroachment to the extent practical without <br />sacrificing mature trees. <br />\ <br />